Start "red flag" laws that allow confiscation of guns from gang members & white-supremacists? (Poll) Any other suggestions for reducing lawlessness?

[Stormy Daniels]

How about the laws that deprive Americans of their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms because somebody thinks they might commit a gun crime in the future?

You mean....the very subject of this thread?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I didn't twist shit. That's what the man quote says.


There is a trade off in security and liberty that today's society needs to come to terms with very quick.

Except have you noticed that Kyzr is willing to trade off everyone else's security & liberty but not his own ("those living in or near big cities ..." are to be one of the targeted groups, one which he just acknowledged he doesn't fit into)

 

[WEATHER53]

Raise your children correctly and lovingly

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Another young shooter kills 10 in Buffalo, the talking heads say we need gun control. Its not the guns fault.
Cities and NY state already have serious gun control. Gun control doesn't work, never does.
People have a lot of guns already, and will never give them up.
The 2nd Amendment says we "non-criminals" can keep our guns, period.

So here's a thought. Serious prison time for anyone who uses a gun for any crime.
1. Including any criminal gang activity
2. Including hate crimes, or road rage.
3. Online monitors for hate speech or manifestos from any hate groups, then the "red flag" law requires them to surrender their guns or go to jail.
4. Bring back stop and frisk laws in big cities. Illegal guns result in fines or prison depending upon their rap sheet.

So lets have a poll to see if any new actions should be taken that would pass the House and Senate...

I support moving Groomers and Fascists out of the USA

 

[Big Bend Texas]

3. Online monitors for hate speech or manifestos from any hate groups, then the "red flag" law requires them to surrender their guns or go to jail.

Just where do you find neutral arbiters of what is/isn't "hate speech"?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Raise your children correctly and lovingly

In a two parent family. Kids need constant instruction and reinforcement.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Another young shooter kills 10 in Buffalo, the talking heads say we need gun control. Its not the guns fault.
Cities and NY state already have serious gun control. Gun control doesn't work, never does.
People have a lot of guns already, and will never give them up.
The 2nd Amendment says we "non-criminals" can keep our guns, period.

So here's a thought. Serious prison time for anyone who uses a gun for any crime.
1. Including any criminal gang activity
2. Including hate crimes, or road rage.
3. Online monitors for hate speech or manifestos from any hate groups, then the "red flag" law requires them to surrender their guns or go to jail.
4. Bring back stop and frisk laws in big cities. Illegal guns result in fines or prison depending upon their rap sheet.

So lets have a poll to see if any new actions should be taken that would pass the House and Senate...

YES, for all white-supremacist activity​

Speech, even speech we find disgusting is protected under the first Amendment.

I support prison time for any criminal that uses a gun in the commission of a crime​

Where such laws have been passed they have been horribly abused and need to be written in such a manner that mere possession of a firearm in the commission of a crime does not carry excessive penalties. They must be narrowly tailored to encompass those who actually use a gun to threaten or harm others, and only in connection with felonies.

Two guys that get busted for smoking pot in their own home and happen to have firearms in the home don't need a 10 year sentence for the enhancement of possessing firearms.

This could all be solved much more simply by much longer sentences for those convicted of drug trafficking or specific crimes of violence.

Whole portions of cities live in terror of the local gangs who utilize terrorist tactics to control their communities. Therefore treat them as terrorist organizations and make the penalties equal to the crimes.

 

[Batcat]

Who determines what being a "white supremacist" entails? Aren't there any race based supremacists who aren't white? The question is how did a psychopath get a gun in one of the most restrictive states and how did he get radicalized in a liberal state that spends time worrying about pronouns related to transfreakazoids?

Trump is being labeled a white supremacist. He has a concealed carry permit in New York City and Florida so he must own firearms. Should Trump’s firearms be confiscated?

More 2020 Democrats calling Trump a 'white supremacist'

More 2020 Democrats are calling President Donald Trump a "white supremacist." ABC News compiled what they candidates are saying -- or not saying.

abcnews.go.com

Sone accuse all conservatives of being racists and white supremacists so should all conservatives lose their right to own firearms?

The Leftist Campaign to Redefine Conservatives as ‘White Supremacists’ - The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator | USA News and Politics

As soon as the verdict was delivered in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, MSNBC and like-minded news outlets pushed a consensus...

spectator.org

The Democrats love to throw around terms like racist and white supremacist like they are snowballs.

 

[westwall]

Another young shooter kills 10 in Buffalo, the talking heads say we need gun control. Its not the guns fault.
Cities and NY state already have serious gun control. Gun control doesn't work, never does.
People have a lot of guns already, and will never give them up.
The 2nd Amendment says we "non-criminals" can keep our guns, period.

So here's a thought. Serious prison time for anyone who uses a gun for any crime.
1. Including any criminal gang activity
2. Including hate crimes, or road rage.
3. Online monitors for hate speech or manifestos from any hate groups, then the "red flag" law requires them to surrender their guns or go to jail.
4. Bring back stop and frisk laws in big cities. Illegal guns result in fines or prison depending upon their rap sheet.

So lets have a poll to see if any new actions should be taken that would pass the House and Senate...

How about we just enforce the laws already on the books.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

How about we just enforce the laws already on the books.

I agree, let's fully enforce the laws on the books for ten years and then look at the results and see what needs tweaking here and there.

It would be eye opening.

 

[kyzr]

Except have you noticed that Kyzr is willing to trade off everyone else's security & liberty but not his own ("those living in or near big cities ..." are to be one of the targeted groups, one which he just acknowledged he doesn't fit into)

I'm not worried about my security, my security is just fine thank you.
I don't live near a city and I have a carry permit.
I don't have a gun violence problem in my area, that is a city problem, duh.

How would I tradeoff anyone else's security but not my own? That makes no sense.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I agree, let's fully enforce the laws on the books for ten years and then look at the results and see what needs tweaking here and there.

It would be eye opening.

Start with the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. Those need to be strictly enforced, with severe penalties for any public servant who has any willing part in violating them.

 

[JoeB131]

Another young shooter kills 10 in Buffalo, the talking heads say we need gun control. Its not the guns fault.
Cities and NY state already have serious gun control. Gun control doesn't work, never does.
People have a lot of guns already, and will never give them up.
The 2nd Amendment says we "non-criminals" can keep our guns, period.

Actually, the Second Amendment is about Militias, and combined with the Third Amendment (whose intent has been lost by a militarized police) was meant to define the use and purpose of militias. It had nothing to do with gun ownership, which was RARE in colonial America.

So here's a thought. Serious prison time for anyone who uses a gun for any crime.
1. Including any criminal gang activity
2. Including hate crimes, or road rage.

We already lock up 2 million people when most other industrialized nations lock up less than 100K. If locking people up solved crime, we'd be there already. If anything, the prison industrial complex makes things worse by creating an institutionalized criminal class.

3. Online monitors for hate speech or manifestos from any hate groups, then the "red flag" law requires them to surrender their guns or go to jail.

Here's the problem with that thinking. The first is, I don't really want the government monitoring on line speech and deciding what is "unacceptable".

Secondly, since most of us post under fake names, how is the government supposed to know who Kyrz or JoeB131 really is when we say something "unacceptable".

Third, the people who are really planning something awful don't post it on line. Yes, THIS idiot did. Most mass shooters don't.

4. Bring back stop and frisk laws in big cities. Illegal guns result in fines or prison depending upon their rap sheet.

Again, all Stop and Frisk did was allow racist cops to hassle people of color. They weren't stopping and frisking white people.

 

[JoeB131]

1/2. Wow bring back the "hangin' judge'!! Being a death penalty supporter puts you way outside the mainstream.

Bob belongs to a whacky cult that believes in Blood Atonement. He wants to kill a whole bunch of people. Women who get abortions, gays, trannies, the poor fool who stole his toolbox because he was dumb enough to leave it in his truck...

 

[JoeB131]

You didn't address that Rudy used "stop and frisk" successfully in NYC. It worked. Why not keep it working?

Because it was applied exclusively against people of color... that's why it was stopped.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Bob belongs to a whacky cult that believes in Blood Atonement. He wants to kill a whole bunch of people. Women who get abortions…

Incel Joe wants the most innocent and defenseless of all humans beings to be subject to being murdered in cold blood, and he condemns me for wishing that those who commit these most depraved of murders should be brought to proper justice.

…gays, trannies, the poor fool who stole his toolbox because he was dumb enough to leave it in his truck...

Bullshit. As is usually for you, you're lying, and you know damn well that you're lying. I never called for any of those to be killed.

It is telling, however, that you consistently take the side of murderers, perverts, criminals, crazies, and others of the very lowest of subhuman filth, against the side of human beings; and that somehow, you think that doing so gives you some kind of moral high ground from which to look down on me.

Your “high ground” is a bottomless pit of depravity, madness, and evil.

 

[kyzr]

Actually, the Second Amendment is about Militias, and combined with the Third Amendment (whose intent has been lost by a militarized police) was meant to define the use and purpose of militias. It had nothing to do with gun ownership, which was RARE in colonial America.

We already lock up 2 million people when most other industrialized nations lock up less than 100K. If locking people up solved crime, we'd be there already. If anything, the prison industrial complex makes things worse by creating an institutionalized criminal class.

Here's the problem with that thinking. The first is, I don't really want the government monitoring on line speech and deciding what is "unacceptable".

Secondly, since most of us post under fake names, how is the government supposed to know who Kyrz or JoeB131 really is when we say something "unacceptable".

Third, the people who are really planning something awful don't post it on line. Yes, THIS idiot did. Most mass shooters don't.

Again, all Stop and Frisk did was allow racist cops to hassle people of color. They weren't stopping and frisking white people.

1. gun ownership in the 1770s wasn't rare. It was about 13% of the population. That makes sense considering that only about 3% of the US population fought the Brits during the Revolutionary War.

2. The criminals can either be in prison, or on the streets. I vote for in prison.

3. We agree. I don't want the government, or government programmed AI, monitoring what we say or type online either. That said, private companies monitor us all the time. If there is an opportunity to "red flag" a shooter, or gang members, isn't that worth doing?

4. The FBI and NSA know who we all are all the time. Bet on it. Remember "Carnivore", Janet Reno's "AI" monitoring program? That was way back in the 1990s. I'm sure today's programs are way better.

Carnivore | software

Carnivore, also called DCS1000, controversial software surveillance system that was developed by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which used the system to search the e-mail and other Internet activity of identified criminal suspects during investigations circa 2000–02. The...

www.britannica.com

5. True, only stupid shooters broadcast it. However, I'm sure gang members and drug dealers and even white-supremacists have social networks that can be monitored. These groups could be singled out for raids and or police surveillance to stop crimes.

6. In NYC "stop and frisk" reduced crime. Full stop. It works, we either want to reduce crime or not. Whining about race doesn't reduce crime.

 

[kyzr]

Because it was applied exclusively against people of color... that's why it was stopped.

Who had the guns whites or blacks?
Policing had to be targeted, the police have limited resources.
Data driven policing reduces crime, politically correct policing doesn't reduce crime.
Don't make me post FBI statistics.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The criminals can either be in prison, or on the streets. I vote for in prison.

Or dead.

In the case of the worst criminals, I vote for dead.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Data driven policing reduces crime, politically correct policing doesn't reduce crime.

Incel Joe does not want crime to be reduced. Pay attention to the positions that it takes. Always, with never an exception that I have ever noticed, it takes the side of criminals, against the side of human beings. Always. And it always argues against holding criminals in any way responsible for their behavior. It always argues for restriction the freedom of human beings, in ways that it claims will reduce crime, but which any sane person can see will only make human beings easier prey for criminals.